***I just had this discussion with a friend who doesn't believe infant baptism counts as real baptism. In a nutshell this is what I said. Please help me figure out if I'm on or off base here*** NateR, ChrisF, anyone else this please weigh in ...

There's no explicit command to withhold baptism from infants anywhere in the Bible, and I look to what baptism is doing. It is - I guess to use some sort of stative tense of the verb "doing" creating a covenant between man and God. Now, waaaay back when Abraham was around God ordered him to circumcise 8 day old baby boys. Why? As a ratification of this covenant.

God used Abraham's own hand to bring these boys into his covenant the same way he uses our own mother/father to bring us into the covenant. That is not to say we are saved, bc it doesn't guarantee salvation at all, it only flags us as a "sign" to God that we are in his covenant - brought forth by faithful parents who elected to obey his command to honor that same covenant themselves. In summary - interpretive prudence shows no explicit command to or not to baptize babies, so therefore we must look for precedence in the previous covenant. If we interpret baptism (infant or adult "believer baptism") as a "sign" then we must seek continuity between the old and new covenant signs ... but there exist none so we must defer then to the old as a biblical basis for it. I hope this makes sense, I'm not as sharp as normal at 2am.

If baptism is only for the elected then Paul would not have baptized entire households when only one member was a believer - I seem to recall that being done. Adult baptism is valid, but so is infant as far as my hermeneutical understading goes ... I also see children as innocent before God. In their innocence they lack faith, but only because they do not understand it.

In any event Satan has used doctrinal issues to divide the church for centuries ... sadly, we allow that to happen, but at the same time we have to stand up for the Truth and if that costs us a church then so be it, but Christians must stay united on the salvational issues always.

***I just had this discussion with a friend who doesn't believe infant baptism counts as real baptism. In a nutshell this is what I said. Please help me figure out if I'm on or off base here*** NateR, ChrisF, anyone else this please weigh in ...

There's no explicit command to withhold baptism from infants anywhere in the Bible, and I look to what baptism is doing. It is - I guess to use some sort of stative tense of the verb "doing" creating a covenant between man and God. Now, waaaay back when Abraham was around God ordered him to circumcise 8 day old baby boys. Why? As a ratification of this covenant.

God used Abraham's own hand to bring these boys into his covenant the same way he uses our own mother/father to bring us into the covenant. That is not to say we are saved, bc it doesn't guarantee salvation at all, it only flags us as a "sign" to God that we are in his covenant - brought forth by faithful parents who elected to obey his command to honor that same covenant themselves. In summary - interpretive prudence shows no explicit command to or not to baptize babies, so therefore we must look for precedence in the previous covenant. If we interpret baptism (infant or adult "believer baptism") as a "sign" then we must seek continuity between the old and new covenant signs ... but there exist none so we must defer then to the old as a biblical basis for it. I hope this makes sense, I'm not as sharp as normal at 2am.

If baptism is only for the elected then Paul would not have baptized entire households when only one member was a believer - I seem to recall that being done. Adult baptism is valid, but so is infant as far as my hermeneutical understading goes ... I also see children as innocent before God. In their innocence they lack faith, but only because they do not understand it.
In any event Satan has used doctrinal issues to divide the church for centuries ... sadly, we allow that to happen, but at the same time we have to stand up for the Truth and if that costs us a church then so be it, but Christians must stay united on the salvational issues always.

I agree with your statement! However, it has always been my understanding that baptism is a believers outward expression to the world of their inward spiritual rebirth. So I'm not sure a parent can make that expression for his/her infant. I'm no Theologian or Pastor, though. To be honest, I have never really thought much about the subject. I can only speak from my experience. My mom and dad had me "so-called" baptized when I was an infant in the Presbyterian Church. My mom explained to me that the Presbyterian Church called it baptism, but viewed it more like a dedication.
The ironic thing is though, I ended up living like the devil the first 22 years of my life. The Lord saved me when I was 23. I then took the next step in obedience and was baptized. At the time,which I still believe to be true..............I was told that baptism is my outward expression of my spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. So I guess my question would be if an infant cannot comprehend such things, what is the point of infant baptism?

I agree with your statement! However, it has always been my understanding that baptism is a believers outward expression to the world of their inward spiritual rebirth. So I'm not sure a parent can make that expression for his/her infant. I'm no Theologian or Pastor, though. To be honest, I have never really thought much about the subject. I can only speak from my experience. My mom and dad had me "so-called" baptized when I was an infant in the Presbyterian Church. My mom explained to me that the Presbyterian Church called it baptism, but viewed it more like a dedication.
The ironic thing is though, I ended up living like the devil the first 22 years of my life. The Lord saved me when I was 23. I then took the next step in obedience and was baptized. At the time,which I still believe to be true..............I was told that baptism is my outward expression of my spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. So I guess my question would be if an infant cannot comprehend such things, what is the point of infant baptism?

-well, salvation and baptism are seperate issues, though the statement you made in bold is compelling. The way it was with Abraham indicates that an adult can supplant such a decision on behalf of a child ... elsewise the circumcisions were not actually covenantal. Thus the inference is reasonable in the spiritual sense.

I can reawaken the sleeping dragon "other thread" if you all want ... or just post here.

I also see children as innocent before God. In their innocence they lack faith, but only because they do not understand it.

No such thing. Children are still born under the curse of sin, so they are still guilty and deserving of judgement. Think of sin like a disease that's passed on to every child in the world at the moment of conception, then you can start to understand why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin to break the cycle of that disease.

The Bible never explicitly states what happens to children if they die. However when judgement was pronounced upon a civilization in the Old Testament, children were ALWAYS included in the judgement:

Ezekiel 9:5-6
To the others He said in my hearing, “Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity. Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” So they began with the elders who were before the temple.

Isaiah 13:13-16 (emphasis added)
Therefore I will shake the heavens,
And the earth will move out of her place,
In the wrath of the LORD of hosts
And in the day of His fierce anger.
It shall be as the hunted gazelle,
And as a sheep that no man takes up;
Every man will turn to his own people,
And everyone will flee to his own land.
Everyone who is found will be thrust through,
And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses will be plundered
And their wives ravished.

Children are not innocent.

In fact, I would argue that the younger a child is, the more of a picture of the "pure" sin nature they display. This is why newborns have the "I want it now!" mentality... all the time.

Anyways, this is a side issue. As for the topic of infant baptism, it's is absolutely not a form of salvation. It might be a form of dedication, but it should never be seen as a substitute for salvation. That child still needs to come to Christ on his/her own or they will go to Hell.

In fact, that's what I would consider the greatest danger of infant baptism is that it could give the parents and/or the child a false sense of security when it comes to his or her eternal destiny.

Baptism is for believers. An infant is incapable of making a profession of faith. First what is it? Baptism in the ancient was much like an altar call is today. Once one makes a profession of faith they followed that with a public profession and baptism. Phillip and the Eunuch is a great example. After Peters sermon was another.

If Paul baptized kids I would need to see the verse. Vizion you said Paul baptized households which is true. The Philipian Jailer was an example. However it does not mention infants or kids for that matter. What it does say however is that he p[reached they believed and were baptized, Acts 16:31-34 So in this case it is clear that it was a believers baptism. I would need to see a verse that in its hermeneutic context shows any infant baptism. Then we can discuss it in more detail. I am u aware of any such verse but there are countless verses that show believers baptisms. Hope this helps sir.